The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood. Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

A lot gets said in this town without a question or challenge. It’s time to step up our observation game and say, “Huh?” or, “Hmmm.”

Last week, Council President Sam O’Leary was quoted in a cleveland.com story about the submission of petitions for a voter referendum to repeal council’s ordinance to close Lakewood Hospital. As reported, he said, “Voters made a sound decision two months ago, and we need to move forward.” The meaning and intent of his statement is more problematic to me than whatever his position is relative to the referendum.

I’m not going to condemn Sam out-of-hand. Based on my experience with that media outlet, he may not have said that, though the comment has bothered me for over a week.

I have to ask, what “sound decision” did voters make, and why? Was he referring to the very close decision on the charter amendment that would call for an automatic referendum on any ordinance that council would approve relative to the hospital deal? That charter amendment proposal was defeated, but not by much. Why did that issue fail? We don’t know. Were the NO voters believers in representative government more than charter amendments and referendums, or were they for closing the hospital? Hmmm. Voters rejected a state issue about legalizing marijuana on the same November ballot. Did voters oppose a state constitutional amendment granting a marijuana monopoly more than they opposed legalization of marijuana? Again, we don’t know.

If Sam was referring to a “sound decision” in voting for particular candidates for mayor, or even himself, how do we know if they voted because of a candidate’s particular position on the hospital issue? Hmmm. I was never a fan of Obama’s positions on public education, even before I voted for him twice for president. By the vote count, we don’t know how may shared my opinion.

The point is, Lakewood voters were not polled as to why they voted one way or another. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions about what voters really wanted because the choice to close Lakewood Hospital was not on the ballot.

The quote attributed to Sam O’Leary is either opinion or a purely political statement, but not based in fact. My concern is not specifically about Sam. I am concerned about any of our local elected and appointed officials, and civic marketers, who disinform or are quick to play the mandate card.

Let’s not just let them work the room with impunity. Feel free to list some of your favorite or least favorite examples of attempts at mind-altering language or images. Humorous, ironic, and paradoxical examples are acceptable, as are the misinformed, mean-spirited, duplicitous, or just plain cloudy (How many of us had to look up “quid pro quo” when Vice President George H. W. Bush told us there wasn’t any in the Iran-Contra scandal?).

Related... See what Sam O'Leary said about the referendum in the Plain Dealer council candidates debate last fall. It's starts at about 1:50. Criticizing Issue 64, he says a referendum is the charter provision for citizens to express themselves on the hospital issue:http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... didat.html

"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear, And hear their death-knell ringing, When friends rejoice both far and near, How can I keep from singing?" --from the Pete Seeger version of "How can I keep from singing?"

Here are two reoccurring contradictions that get the "Huh?" and "Hmmm" from me:

1. Summers, Bullock and others constantly accusing others of "politicizing" the hospital issue.2. Summers and almost every Councilmember last year saying the Master Agreement was the "only option"--in making this statement, the leaders cited the Huron and Subsidium reports--neither consultant was engaged to look at the most obvious and customary "option" available to a board of directors and/or landlord with a troubled business/tenant: namely, find out what went wrong and adjust or change management. For political purposes, neither consultant was allowed to look back and find out "why" we were where we were. Huh?

In a recent post, I mentioned that City Hall is withholding records a concerning how Summers. Butler and Bullock used the Huron consultant for political purposes.

In an email back in October, 2015, Tom Bullock wrote concerning his secret use of the Huron consultant to discredit Candidate Skindell:

"It's entirely appropriate to seek clarifications from the City's analyst to clarify their statements which were quoted by a candidate campaign (out of context), in this case Sen. Skindell. Those clarifications are related to better understanding a policy issue.

Please direct your umbrage to Sen. Skindell, who politicized the Huron report and who has for months politicized the hospital issue."

The problem for Mr. Bullock is that Skindell never made the statements Bullock and the Huron Consultant attributed to Skindell--Bullock's claim was a complete fabrication.

To make matters worse, Summers handed the product of Bullock's and the consultant's fabrications to the PD for a political endorsement during the editorial interview.

Back in April, 2015, when I first spoke with Bullock (before anyone knew the monster I would become) Bullock said "there is no way you can criticize the Subsidium report."

So Bullock is at the center of controlling a public consultant (Huron) who defended a sham consultant (Subsidium) for purely political purposes and the reports of both consultants were used as the foundation for the political leaders claims the Master Agreement was "the only option." Hmmmm Huh?

Mr. Essi, I'm in complete agreement with you on the value of Mr. Davis' post. If I were to quibble at all with Mr. Davis it would be that I believe he has afforded Mr. O'Leary the benefit of the doubt where none should exist. Mr. O'Leary as well as Mr. Anderson went behind closed doors, again and again and again to ensure that a deal would be brokered in the shadows rather than in the open light of day. I believe that conduct should inform our opinion of both of them.

stephen davis wrote:A lot gets said in this town without a question or challenge. It’s time to step up our observation game and say, “Huh?” or, “Hmmm.”

Last week, Council President Sam O’Leary was quoted in a cleveland.com story about the submission of petitions for a voter referendum to repeal council’s ordinance to close Lakewood Hospital. As reported, he said, “Voters made a sound decision two months ago, and we need to move forward.” The meaning and intent of his statement is more problematic to me than whatever his position is relative to the referendum.

I’m not going to condemn Sam out-of-hand. Based on my experience with that media outlet, he may not have said that, though the comment has bothered me for over a week.

I have to ask, what “sound decision” did voters make, and why? Was he referring to the very close decision on the charter amendment that would call for an automatic referendum on any ordinance that council would approve relative to the hospital deal? That charter amendment proposal was defeated, but not by much. Why did that issue fail? We don’t know. Were the NO voters believers in representative government more than charter amendments and referendums, or were they for closing the hospital? Hmmm. Voters rejected a state issue about legalizing marijuana on the same November ballot. Did voters oppose a state constitutional amendment granting a marijuana monopoly more than they opposed legalization of marijuana? Again, we don’t know.

If Sam was referring to a “sound decision” in voting for particular candidates for mayor, or even himself, how do we know if they voted because of a candidate’s particular position on the hospital issue? Hmmm. I was never a fan of Obama’s positions on public education, even before I voted for him twice for president. By the vote count, we don’t know how may shared my opinion.

The point is, Lakewood voters were not polled as to why they voted one way or another. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions about what voters really wanted because the choice to close Lakewood Hospital was not on the ballot.

The quote attributed to Sam O’Leary is either opinion or a purely political statement, but not based in fact. My concern is not specifically about Sam. I am concerned about any of our local elected and appointed officials, and civic marketers, who disinform or are quick to play the mandate card.

Yes, I know I just quoted myself, but I just read the following opinion piece in the Lakewood Observer. It reminded me of this thread.

Linda Beebe wrote:Let's Move Forward, Not Look Back

by Linda Beebe

The drama concerning the future of Lakewood Hospital continues even though it should have been resolved with the election results last November. Voters re-elected Mayor Mike Summers, an opponent of the proposed referendum, and defeated Issue 64 which would have forced a vote of the people before any decisions could be made regarding the hospital.

In December after lengthy consideration, Lakewood City Council voted unanimously to approve the Cleveland Clinic proposal to replace the aging Lakewood Hospital inpatient facility with a state-of-the-art Family Health Center which would include a full service emergency room.

In response, Save Lakewood Hospital issued petitions for a second referendum to reverse the City Council vote, even though an enforceable contract with Cleveland Clinic has been signed. That referendum is again on the fall ballot. Public comments and flyers in support posted about the community from the Save Lakewood Hospital organization are brimming with undocumented allegations.

It is my hope that Lakewood voters will carefully consider the consequences associated with this expensive and pointless referendum and choose to move forward with a modern facility. I urge Lakewood voters to vote for progress and defeat the second referendum on this issue as they did the first one.

Huh? That first paragraph sounds familiar, and O'Learyesque. Here it is again:

Linda Beebe wrote:The drama concerning the future of Lakewood Hospital continues even though it should have been resolved with the election results last November. Voters re-elected Mayor Mike Summers, an opponent of the proposed referendum, and defeated Issue 64 which would have forced a vote of the people before any decisions could be made regarding the hospital.

"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear, And hear their death-knell ringing, When friends rejoice both far and near, How can I keep from singing?" --from the Pete Seeger version of "How can I keep from singing?"

stephen davis wrote:A lot gets said in this town without a question or challenge. It’s time to step up our observation game and say, “Huh?” or, “Hmmm.”

Last week, Council President Sam O’Leary was quoted in a cleveland.com story about the submission of petitions for a voter referendum to repeal council’s ordinance to close Lakewood Hospital. As reported, he said, “Voters made a sound decision two months ago, and we need to move forward.” The meaning and intent of his statement is more problematic to me than whatever his position is relative to the referendum.

I’m not going to condemn Sam out-of-hand. Based on my experience with that media outlet, he may not have said that, though the comment has bothered me for over a week.

I have to ask, what “sound decision” did voters make, and why? Was he referring to the very close decision on the charter amendment that would call for an automatic referendum on any ordinance that council would approve relative to the hospital deal? That charter amendment proposal was defeated, but not by much. Why did that issue fail? We don’t know. Were the NO voters believers in representative government more than charter amendments and referendums, or were they for closing the hospital? Hmmm. Voters rejected a state issue about legalizing marijuana on the same November ballot. Did voters oppose a state constitutional amendment granting a marijuana monopoly more than they opposed legalization of marijuana? Again, we don’t know.

If Sam was referring to a “sound decision” in voting for particular candidates for mayor, or even himself, how do we know if they voted because of a candidate’s particular position on the hospital issue? Hmmm. I was never a fan of Obama’s positions on public education, even before I voted for him twice for president. By the vote count, we don’t know how may shared my opinion.

The point is, Lakewood voters were not polled as to why they voted one way or another. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions about what voters really wanted because the choice to close Lakewood Hospital was not on the ballot.

The quote attributed to Sam O’Leary is either opinion or a purely political statement, but not based in fact. My concern is not specifically about Sam. I am concerned about any of our local elected and appointed officials, and civic marketers, who disinform or are quick to play the mandate card.

Yes, I know I just quoted myself, but I just read the following opinion piece in the Lakewood Observer. It reminded me of this thread.

Linda Beebe wrote:Let's Move Forward, Not Look Back

by Linda Beebe

The drama concerning the future of Lakewood Hospital continues even though it should have been resolved with the election results last November. Voters re-elected Mayor Mike Summers, an opponent of the proposed referendum, and defeated Issue 64 which would have forced a vote of the people before any decisions could be made regarding the hospital.

In December after lengthy consideration, Lakewood City Council voted unanimously to approve the Cleveland Clinic proposal to replace the aging Lakewood Hospital inpatient facility with a state-of-the-art Family Health Center which would include a full service emergency room.

In response, Save Lakewood Hospital issued petitions for a second referendum to reverse the City Council vote, even though an enforceable contract with Cleveland Clinic has been signed. That referendum is again on the fall ballot. Public comments and flyers in support posted about the community from the Save Lakewood Hospital organization are brimming with undocumented allegations.

It is my hope that Lakewood voters will carefully consider the consequences associated with this expensive and pointless referendum and choose to move forward with a modern facility. I urge Lakewood voters to vote for progress and defeat the second referendum on this issue as they did the first one.

Huh? That first paragraph sounds familiar, and O'Learyesque. Here it is again:

Linda Beebe wrote:The drama concerning the future of Lakewood Hospital continues even though it should have been resolved with the election results last November. Voters re-elected Mayor Mike Summers, an opponent of the proposed referendum, and defeated Issue 64 which would have forced a vote of the people before any decisions could be made regarding the hospital.

Hmmm. Is this a well-founded premise?

.

Mr. Davis,

The premise is false and here is why:

1. O'Leary testified under oath on court in Skindell v. Madigan that the Master Agreement did not exist until December 10, 2015. If that testimony is true, the voters could not have voted on it last November.

2. Butler's responses to public records requests (if truthful) verified that the city had no records of a Master Agreement until December 10, 2015. If Butler's reponses are truthful, the voters could not have voted on the Master Agreement last November.

3. The Master Agreement contained many different terms and many details that were not in the LOI in January 2015. It was about $20M worse for Lakewood than the LOI. So voters had no chance to vote on it and Summers did not campaign on those changes.

So Beebe is dead wrong and is pushing a bogus premise. Why?

Has she even read the Master Agreement?Does she understand the Master agreement and the referendum? Is she just parroting talking points?Or is she intentionally misrepresenting things?

Dan Alaimo wrote:Related... See what Sam O'Leary said about the referendum in the Plain Dealer council candidates debate last fall. It's starts at about 1:50. Criticizing Issue 64, he says a referendum is the charter provision for citizens to express themselves on the hospital issue:http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... didat.html

As long as we are quoting ourselves, here's a point I made from earlier in the thread. Council candidates saying that the referendum is the appropriate way for citizens to make their voice heard. Also it differentiates Issue 64 from the current referendum, a distinction they are now trying to blur (see the Beebe article).

"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear, And hear their death-knell ringing, When friends rejoice both far and near, How can I keep from singing?" --from the Pete Seeger version of "How can I keep from singing?"

Dan Alaimo wrote:Related... See what Sam O'Leary said about the referendum in the Plain Dealer council candidates debate last fall. It's starts at about 1:50. Criticizing Issue 64, he says a referendum is the charter provision for citizens to express themselves on the hospital issue:http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index ... didat.html

As long as we are quoting ourselves, here's a point I made from earlier in the thread. Council candidates saying that the referendum is the appropriate way for citizens to make their voice heard. Also it differentiates Issue 64 from the current referendum, a distinction they are now trying to blur (see the Beebe article).

Dan,

What we are witnessing is that lies and blurring of facts by elected leaders are their first resort to escape accountability in any public discussion.

When we line up the facts and logic with those lies as you have done, the elected leaders look foolish and illogical.

"When tyrants tremble, sick with fear, And hear their death-knell ringing, When friends rejoice both far and near, How can I keep from singing?" --from the Pete Seeger version of "How can I keep from singing?"